«

In article <e9qNa.4007$>, mbt_510464
@hotmail.com says...
> I think I sorted it with Microsofts registry edit , I'll have to wait for an
> arttachement now to see if I cured it. The registry path was there but I had
> to create a new Value in the security because ' Level1Remove wasn't there.


why wait for the attachment? why not just send an email to yourself?

--
Mel

Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.

"PWB" <> wrote in message
news:19pNa.3967$...
> I have just started using outlook 2000 and today I recieved a URL but
> outlook denied it to me saying it was unsafe i.e. it stripped it clean of
> any .url that was sent. Does anyone know how I get over this predicament
> please and am able to open all my arttachements. TIA
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.496 / Virus Database: 295 - Release Date: 03/07/2003
>
>
OK, if one more person asks this question i'm gonna scream.
When will microsoft get the idea that people dont care if they get an unsafe
attachment

I have used this patch to Outlook with great success. Makes it very
convenient to change what attachments Outlook will open or not.

http://www.mrhtech.com/Software/OutlookPermissions.asp



"PWB" <> wrote in message
news:19pNa.3967$
> I have just started using outlook 2000 and today I recieved a URL but
> outlook denied it to me saying it was unsafe i.e. it stripped it
> clean of any .url that was sent. Does anyone know how I get over this
> predicament please and am able to open all my arttachements. TIA
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.496 / Virus Database: 295 - Release Date: 03/07/2003

X-No-Archive: Yes

Mara wrote:

>
> I hope people have the sense to Just Say No to us. Considering our track record
> on trolling and abuse and our overall dishonesty, I'll bet everyone is laughing
> their asses off after learning about Jimchip and I. After all, we sucked
> before they ever read about us, so what will it be like after more people
> read about us? I envision us wandering about online thinking we're fully correct in
> our posts, when in reality we don't have a stitch of common sense or morals,
> if you know what I mean.
>
> "And everyone is snickering in the background."
>

I'm impressed that you are starting to recongnize some of your issues.

I have now its ok , when I posted the email re. sorted I was on my way to
bed, I gotta sleep
"arien" <> wrote in message
news:. au...
> In article <e9qNa.4007$>, mbt_510464
> @hotmail.com says...
> > I think I sorted it with Microsofts registry edit , I'll have to wait
for an
> > arttachement now to see if I cured it. The registry path was there but I
had
> > to create a new Value in the security because ' Level1Remove wasn't
there.
>
>
> why wait for the attachment? why not just send an email to yourself?
>
> --
> Mel
>
> Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.

"Murray McNeill" <mfmcneill@_NOSPAM_execulink.com> wrote in message
news:...
> I have used this patch to Outlook with great success. Makes it very
> convenient to change what attachments Outlook will open or not.
>
> http://www.mrhtech.com/Software/OutlookPermissions.asp
Thanks It looks promising if I come accross any more attachements I can't
open, but is there a charge? because I can't see anything on the page.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 06:06:19 -0500, in
<>
Mara scrawled:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:43:49 +0100, °Mike° wrote:
>
>>I think it's a joke. I wonder how long it will take before the
>>MS offering becomes integrated into Windows, like IE. It would
>>put a lot of paid-for AV solutions on a thin rope, wouldn't it?
>
>I hope people have the sense to Just Say No to it. Considering M$'s
>track record on security and their overall honesty, I'll bet malware
>writers are laughing their asses off after learning about this. After
>all, their security sucked before they ever thought of this, so what
>will it be like after they implement it? I envision cluebies wandering
>about online thinking they're fully encased in steel armour, when in
>reality they don't have a stitch of clothing or armour on, if you know
>what I mean.
>
>"And M$, snickering, in the background."

I'd certainly avoid a M$ antivirus solution with even greater
disdain than I would McAfee.

--
STGP, OGPE24HSHD

I just tested the kink you gave me its a shortcut to the registry , its the
same as the registry edit that someone gave me in a previous post . But its
hand though because save anyone going into the registry they just edit this
program and it does it in the registry for you.
"Murray McNeill" <mfmcneill@_NOSPAM_execulink.com> wrote in message
news:...
> I have used this patch to Outlook with great success. Makes it very
> convenient to change what attachments Outlook will open or not.
>
> http://www.mrhtech.com/Software/OutlookPermissions.asp
>
>
>
> "PWB" <> wrote in message
> news:19pNa.3967$
> > I have just started using outlook 2000 and today I recieved a URL but
> > outlook denied it to me saying it was unsafe i.e. it stripped it
> > clean of any .url that was sent. Does anyone know how I get over this
> > predicament please and am able to open all my arttachements. TIA
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.496 / Virus Database: 295 - Release Date: 03/07/2003
>
>

OK I'll try again. I received the .url from a friend of mine that is using
Outlook Express and when I received it I had the message from the email
'Outlook has blocked unsafe attachements' or words to that effect. When I
enquired this morning he said he just Clicked Tools>Mail and News>Send a
Link. But I didn't receive the URL only the email with the above message.
"°Mike°" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Huh? I didn't understand a word of that in the context of
> this thread. You said that Outlook blocked access to an
> attachment, and, then, that it was a .url .
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 17:30:20 +0100, in
> <u2DNa.3210$>
> PWB scrawled:
>
> >It was sent apparently with OE and in internet explorer it says
> >click a link to send URL.
> >
> >"°Mike°" <> wrote in message
> >news:...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Then the person should have typed the url into the message, rather
> >> than send it as a .url file attachment. The MS article I posted
> >> was click-able, but it was not necessary to send it as an attachment.
> >>
>
> --
> STGP, OGPE24HSHD

Yes that's what I did say (if this edit the OP hadn't sent the link to a bit
further up. But what do you mean exactly by 'highlight the attachment' Do
you mean Highlight it as in write what the address is, I'm not 100% with
you. Its getting late
> and remove it
"°Mike°" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Outlook must be treating the .url attachment that is sent
> with a link as a possible security hazard. Tell you friend
> to either copy and paste the url into the body of the
> message, or when he/she 'sends a link', highlight the attachment
> and remove it - it's not needed, as the click-able link is
> included in the message body.
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:15:41 +0100, in
> <dBENa.3287$>
> PWB scrawled:
>
> >OK I'll try again. I received the .url from a friend of mine that is
using
> >Outlook Express and when I received it I had the message from the email
> >'Outlook has blocked unsafe attachements' or words to that effect. When I
> >enquired this morning he said he just Clicked Tools>Mail and News>Send a
> >Link. But I didn't receive the URL only the email with the above message.
> >"°Mike°" <> wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> Huh? I didn't understand a word of that in the context of
> >> this thread. You said that Outlook blocked access to an
> >> attachment, and, then, that it was a .url .
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 17:30:20 +0100, in
> >> <u2DNa.3210$>
> >> PWB scrawled:
> >>
> >> >It was sent apparently with OE and in internet explorer it says
> >> >click a link to send URL.
> >> >
> >> >"°Mike°" <> wrote in message
> >> >news:...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> Then the person should have typed the url into the message, rather
> >> >> than send it as a .url file attachment. The MS article I posted
> >> >> was click-able, but it was not necessary to send it as an
attachment.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> STGP, OGPE24HSHD
> >
>
> --
> STGP, OGPE24HSHD